Reclaiming the Loch Ness Monster from the current tide of debunking and scepticism. If you believe there is something strange in Loch Ness, read on.

Sunday, 2 November 2014

A Day At The Scottish Paranormal Festival

It was off to Stirling this Friday as I made the short trip from Edinburgh for a day of paranormal lectures with Nessie surfacing somewhere along the line. The event was into its second of four days at the Albert Halls just outside the town centre.

I bought a whole day pass which gained me entrance to the day's five lectures, starting with our very own cryptid at 10am. The speaker was Jonathan Bright, who will be familiar to regulars here as the taker of an alleged photograph of Nessie back in 2011. I say alleged because not all agree on the identity of the object in the picture. This blog takes the view that it is Nessie, others interpret it as a wave.

Jonathan gave some background on his own general, paranormal investigations at home (in Greece) and beyond. But his photo took pride of place in the presentation as Jonathan discussed how he saw a horse like head in the picture which followed in the tradition of the good old water horse of old. He then went through the various ways in which the Loch Ness Monster could be interpreted as a paranormal phenomenon. I'll develop that more as I describe the day.

The second talk by Jonathan Downes on the Chupacabra was cancelled. I don't know why and I was disappointed not to hear and meet Jon for the first time. As a result of this gap, the Q&A session for the Loch Ness Monster talked was extended.

After this, the third scheduled talk was by the "Paranormal Contractor", Stephen Mera. This concerned his various call outs to investigate strange goings on across Britain.There was no theory here but a series of tales of his adventures as he came across phenomena which were explicable and inexplicable. Swinging lights were explained by a kid with a yo-yo, but water which was observed to travel across a ceiling like a snake and drop down like rain was beyond his powers of deduction.

Equally, if not more compelling was the talk by Nick Kyle of the Scottish Society for Psychical Research. Ironically, he was a replacement for another call-off, Hayley Stevens, who is a ghost-hunting sceptic. I say ironic because Nck is the opposite of Hayley in his conclusions. Some fascinating tales, pictures and audios made for an interesting case for phenomena which require an explanation beyond what the sceptics normally offer. Then again, I have not read their explanations for these events and so will say no more.

The final talk of the day was by Peter McCue and entitled "Orchestrations of the Trickster". This took me back to the musings of Charles Fort, from whom we derive the word "Fortean". Fort speculated on whether the odd stories he had compiled over the years were evidence of a Cosmic Trickster playing tricks on mankind.

How much Fort believed this I don't know, but Peter McCue brought it up to date by suggesting phenomena such as UFOs, Bigfoot and Poltergeist activity had the same origin in a higher intelligence. By implication, this would extend to other cryptids. This is not a new theory, but it still baffles me as to the motives of such a "Trickster" who persists in this apparently puerile behaviour for millenia. Suggestions are welcome.

So ended an interesting day, but how applicable was all this to the Loch Ness Monster? Firstly, I would say that Nessie hunters of the past such as Tim Dinsdale and Ted Holiday would have been quite at home with these proceedings and would happily have taken their seats here. Indeed, seeing one or both of them presenting a talk would not have been out of the question.

There are a plurality of readers of this blog who subscribe to a paranormal Loch Ness Monster. Again, they would have no problem turning up at such a conference. But quite how this all hangs together is vague (to me at least).

I, myself, believe in paranormal phenomena and have even subscribed to a paranormal Nessie in the past. From what I discerned this Friday past, it is not clear whether that theory has developed much. To take a paranormal position will get rid of supposed problems such as food supply and the lack of a carcass. However, to say Nessie is a solidified thought form looks as easy to say as the sceptics saying Greta Finlay only saw a deer. Easy to say, but how do you convince those outside your "camp" of this?

Perhaps a more solid theory explaining this will be forthcoming, in which case I will pay more attention. In the meantime, you are free to post your musings and theories.

On a final note, I talked to Malcolm Robinson, who has written various books on strange phenomena. He tells me that he hopes to publish a new book on the Loch Ness Monster entitled "The Monsters of Loch Ness" by the end of the year. I look forward to that, though note this is the same title as the late Roy Mackal's book. Can you do that?

And to finally bring this article back to the blog's position, Malcolm agrees with me that Nessie is a water breathing animal!

35 comments:

‘However, to say Nessie is a solidified thought form looks as easy to say as the sceptics saying Greta Finlay only saw a deer.’

Roland, I do hope that you wrote this in haste because there simply cannot be any comparisons between these two claims in any sensible way. Deer are known to exist and the suggestion that Finaly saw one is the most obvious and logical explanation. If it looks like a deer, behaves like a deer, has the same dimensions as a deer, than it is a deer! ‘Solidified thoughts’ have not been proven to exist. There’s no comparison here.

I do not think you are properly looking at the Finlay case to make such a suggestion. If it looks like a deer, behaves like a deer, has the dimensions of a deer, then the witness will recognise it as a deer - especially at 20 yards!

The irrational point comes when you expect everyone else to believe this! Just like tulpas. Same in kind, if not in degree.

I disagree with Trevor. I think the most likely explanation is that Greta Finlay saw a deer. The drawing and description looks like a deer. More importantly it doesn't look like the majority of other head and neck descrptions so if you believe Greta F's account you have to dismiss most other eyewitness reports.

The description sounds like a deer? Really? We must have been reading different descriptions. As for its similarity to other sightings - long neck, small head almost indistinguishable from neck, humped back....sounds pretty familiar to me.

Roland, it’s not a matter of dismissing a report just for the sake of it, but rather a matter of forming an opinion based on the available evidence.

The hoax hypothesis in the Finlay case doesn’t seem to be the simplest explanation. In order to claim so, you’d need to have a motive and evidence that she intentional purported deception (e.g. monetary gain from the sighting, self promotion, confession, history of hoaxing, etc. - none of which seems to apply to G Finlay). On the other hand, there are clues she’d witnessed a swimming deer (description of the animal’s appearance, size, behaviour, location of encounter, the fact that deer are known to live around Loch Ness, etc.).

The argument that she would have recognised a deer from the given distance for what it was is not valid. Why do you think a visiting tourist (she was caravanning) would expect to see a deer swimming in a cold mountain lake? She did not recognize it because she was not expecting a deer to exhibit such behaviour. In fact, how many ‘average’ people do you know of who are even aware that deer (and other terrestrial animals) enter lakes and rivers (add to this the fact that back in the 1950s there weren’t as many educative ‘animal programmes’ on TV)?

As for the proliferation of wildlife programmes. My grandparents didn't have a tv in the house. Both could have identified a deer at 20 yards, like any highlander could. David Attenborough's help not required;-)

Curious reply from GB. I assume that if you believe in this Finlay drawing you must look at the Hugh Gray photo and ask "Where are the horns?" You must also dismiss all the hornless reports on the same basis.Ah, but you'll say they might not be horns, they might be something retractable. Well aren't deer ears able to move back or down so not readily visible too?

I am remembering now quite clearly why I chose to stop posting here: my regular offerings were habitually either 1) not "approved" for posting, or 2) not "approved" in a timely way (or until such time as Roland had time to form a rebuttal); but, meanwhile, insulting comments from anonymous conspiracy theorists were allowed. Why do I mention this? Because my post from yesterday was never approved.

Well, now. Let's try again.

Regarding Greta Finlay and other eyewitness testimonies: as a sceptic, I have been accused of suggesting that those who have claimed to see Nessie are either liars or incompetents who can't recognize ordinary boats/logs/deer/etc. What is rarely addressed (and often dismissed as being of slim importance) are the psychological differences between different human beings, and the manner in which they interpret or rationalize events in relation to their general belief systems.

Here's an example. Years ago, after the birth of my wife, my mother-in-law, who is a devout (and some would say obsessive) Christian -- one who sees religious significance in all things, great and small -- was prescribed medicine for postpartum depression. In addition to the effects of the depression itself, she was advised that the medication might cause sleeplessness, acute anxiety, and panic attacks. Sure enough, she went three days without sleep (whilst dealing with a newborn!), and when her body finally shut down, she had a terrible experience involving demons causing her physical paralysis, climbing into her bed, and trying to take over her body. She swears to this.

The doctors' diagnosis? Severe stress and exhaustion, coupled with a strong adverse reaction to medication.

Her interpretation? Demons were trying to possess her. And what's more, she knows this for a fact, given that just before bed, she was reading an article on demonic possession!

Look, I'm not going to change anyones' mind. I'm sure the believers are smirking and scoffing at my example. Nonetheless, the fact remains that honest people "see" the world in ways that sometimes fall in line with the status quo, but sometimes don't. Some people believe that a reaction to prescription medicine following their reading an article on demonic possession is ... attempted demonic possession. They'll swear to it in a court of law and nothing you say will convince them otherwise. Some people see something at Loch Ness -- a place famous for supposedly having a monster -- and swear, in all honesty, that they saw the Loch Ness Monster.

For one to dispute their testimony doesn't need to suggest that they're "stupid or lying," but rather, beg other questions: who was the individual, psychologically speaking...? It needs to be kept in mind that good, upstanding people will place their hand on a stack of Bibles and swear to all sorts of things, regardless of whether or not they're true, because they're TRUE TO THEM.

As recorded by Whyte (More than a Legend 1957), G Finlay provided verbal description of her observation two days after the encounter. The drawing of what she thought she saw was actually made by her son who only saw the object as it was moving away quickly! Maurice Burton (whose credentials as trained zoologist no one should suspect) identified the animal as a red deer and assumed the ears were not 'pricked but, as often happens when the neck is stretched, laid back along the neck' (The Elusive Monster 1961:132). In fact, if one takes a closer look at the original drawing as published by White (1957:70) and not the reconstruction by Dinsdale, one will observe a significant widening of the 'cheeks' on either side of the head. Another possibility is that the 'horns' were actually ears of a doe. In any case, the drawing was not made by the prime witness herself and is not the exact representation of the object observed. It's only an approximation, but a rather accurate one of a doe/deer.http://www.whitetaildeer-management-and-hunting.com/may-5-whitetail-deer-photos.html

trevorthecat - I am not aware of any evidence that "they were totally familiar with their surroundings". Yes they were from Inverness and staying in a caravan, and 12 year old Harry was keen on fishing and had just got a new rod for his birthday, but that is really all we know about them. The caravans were used by forestry contractors, and Harry Finlay Senior may have been one of them, letting his wife and son stay there that weekend. Harry Junior made several sketches of what he saw, while his mother made none as far as we know, and it would be reasonable for the both the family and past authors to favour the most "unusual" version to illustrate the story. Finally, deer's ears are not always prominent, as seen in this image - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_24DiIyv7xn4/TJgQj2JuW6I/AAAAAAAAI8Q/dprX493dUIo/s1600/2010+0814+CI+6005+sika.jpg

Posts from ekm, ATL and Dick Raynor all in a row! I have to say it's great to read so much LOGIC here today. Not the usual stuff about conspiracies or blind acceptance of unsubstantiated eyewitness reports as "proof" of a monster.

I'll say it again - this site is the best source for Nessie information covering all angles.

You wait for for one sceptic to turn up and four turn up at once. DR, EKM, GS, AL and others, you are giving out conspiracy fellows the impression this is an organised attack.

Oh well, let's gerrintaerum.

GS, your one dimensional view of the monster betrays a straw man approach. If you had never seen a lion and a lioness before, doubtless you would regards them as seperate species because one has a mane and the other doesn't.

DR, even your example of deer's ears not being prominent, shows them ... prominent and very visible. Whyte only mentions one sketch (p..69) - your source?

AL, where exactly does it say Harry only saw the object as it was moving away quickly? I don;t see that in the text. Excuse me, but the ears are along the back when the neck is stretched - horizontally. This object is vertical, is it not? You say Greta was the prime witness without any evidence for that and would have us assume that she never watched over her son's drawing. You know what, I get a bit fed up with these freeze frame pictures which are offered as genuine pictures. If we have two people in front of a "deer", which way are the ears going to be pointing? In the direction of the most likely threat!

EKM is back! They just can't stay away! Demons, eh? Was Greta under extreme stress and duress? Some caravan holiday! Moreover, we have two witnesses. How can two people mistake a deer for a grey, 15 foot, ugly, snail like monster?

You tell me, somebody tell me, just because these guys say it is so, doesn't make it so. Not even close.

Dick - my point stands; they were from along the road, that's all i mean by suggesting they were likely comfortable with their surroundings. I was responding to the earlier suggestion that these were visitors new to the area. Greta's comment that the sound of the splashing water was unlike that of normal boat wash (i paraphrase here) also suggests this wasn't the first time she'd been in that environment.

So GB, you're suggesting that one gender of LNMs has horns and the other doesn't? So presumably you are thinking there is some kind of underwater rutting season where the males butt heads to win the females? Or any other fantastical theory which upon close inspection goes up in flames like a straw man or wicker man?

By the way, quite a few people have requested and received my analysis of the Bright photo, and the general feeling is that you are hiding the facts from your readers by not posting it.

Hi trevorthecat. Many people are making unwarranted assumptions regarding this story. Forestry contractors were living in caravans between the pier and Tor Point at that time, and it seems likely that HF Sr was one of them. 20th August was a Wednesday, so it is unlikely that GF and HF Jr were occupying a "weekend caravan". If they had been there since the weekend, along with HF Sr, they would have become accustomed to boat traffic noises over the previous five days. It was almost certainly their first exposure to Loch Ness and swimming deer; there is nothing to say otherwise. And finally, how many deer do you see swimming or scared into the loch on your daily journeys? I'll buy you a pint for each of them! DR

Geordie,what about Robert butlers 15 foot away encounter with six foot thick sub shaped animal underwater?are you back at your job with the other skeptics trying to coordinate a response?? What a life!!

Anonymous, provide some evidence of that underwater encounter and I'll happily discuss it. If you can only tell me he said it happened, I recommend you don't bother. We've been through that a dozen times.

And as for the stuff about coordination, getting paid etc.... I seriously recommend you speak to someone about your thoughts. It's not healthy to live under a shadow of paranoia and imagined conspiracies.

Worst thing of all is the loony control freaks who work for big brother who is so insecure they feel they must control all free internet thought on all websites,using ridicule and insults amongst other hate tech that snowden recently revealed.what small people.

I'm not going to speak for others who have had similar issues, but only for myself. I have had a number of posts go unapproved, floating in limbo, whilst insults from Nessie-supporters have gone up. By your own admission, you withhold sceptical comments until you have time to form a rebuttal.

And this, combined with anonymous personal attacks on my person which you saw fit to approve, initiated my sabbatical.

If you ARE withholding the loonier conspiracy posts and only publishing the "saner" versions, then I suggest finding new allies.

One last thing: Geordie, Dick and I have all come under attack from a person or persons posting as "Anonymous." How about we all use names, real or imagined, so we know who's who?